If there is a creation, there is a Creator. And that Creator died and rose again so you could live (John 3:16).

But the very existence of pixie universe greatly suggests greatly a cause. Thus, the fact that we exist is proof enough that something.. and not nothing... caused creation

I didn't say it's proof but proof enough... which strongly suggests an un-natural source of the effect.

"My cosmology hinges on things that can be observed and studied."

No, the only thing you can observe that supports the 1st Law is a heated and cooling metal. And as for the Big Bang, the only evidence for that is an expanding universe which in of itself can also support my cosmology

"I don't know what you mean by "not an energy"

Correct me if I'm wrong, every atom has energy since it's basically made up of photons and electrons; positive and negative energy. Atomic energy is relative to the number of both. If so, then how can atomic energies combine to become something less energetic and combine to become a molecule?

"I beleve it's very likely that there are other planets in the universe that have life. There are trillions of stars in the universe, and millions if not billions of planets, and the likelihood that some of those planets meet the requirements to sustain life is very high. Even if we're the only planet with life, though, that doesn't prove anything about a god."

No but it's a strong evidence of Him. the fact that we only have one planet that supports life in the whole galaxy of ours is no product of a series of happy accidents. If you pour an infinite amount of rocks into another rock, it can cause sparks but does not produce water. You can say "Of course, the composition of the rock doesn't have hydrogen in the first place", but then I can say the same with planet earth.

If all atoms from the beginning are an Atomic energy then one explosion cannot create whole different atoms. If all atoms happened to have certain property or properties that can bond with one another atom on contact to form into a molecule then it should have a snowball effect. But when that happens, will the molecule become something different in relations to others? Is it dependent on alignment of atom?

This is simply not answered by time. To me, a million things has to happen until the right series of ingredients come together. Maybe a thousand to a million explosions later creates dirt, then hydrogen with enough oxygen becomes water? Then the two "decided" to meet in such an orderly fashion that the dirt combines to becomes earth and water to become an ocean? Something also has to keep the center of the earth, hot. Then lastly, special molecules must gather together, to keep oxygen from easily escaping into space.

It doesn't but that sure proves the incorrectness of nothing created something.

Right?

I've done some reading, because admittedly, science is not my forte. History is. I'll post my sources below.

The Laws of Thermodynamics are theoretical laws that assumes that energy have always existed (1st Law). The theory began as a wonderment of why heat rises and falls in a fluid manner. Energy is produced when there's friction; the faster it goes the greater the energy but then, for some reason, friction decreases (2nd Law).

But let's assume that energy has always existed, after all, how can energy manifests itself without a basis for which it can radiate? Isn't it interesting that energy is not constant? The 2nd Law states that energy always experiences Entropy, or disorder.
Heat will always fall and never reverses back; therefore, it needs an external source to keep it at that state.

And since energy always falls, how can energy becomes something else? Can fire turn into gold without first adding to the flame in the first place? You can say that the Big Bang was the catalyst as the violence of force causes energy to collide, but energy is just energy. It rises and falls unless... it is sustained... by an external source.

That external source is God.

"Saying "god did it" tells us nothing, because we can't even verify that it's true."

Neither can you with the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Big Bang, but you believe it.

"Then you would have to provide evidence for this god. Obviously if god doesn't exist he can't be a cause of anything. You have to first demonstrate that he exists and is a possible explanation for things before you posit him as an explanation for something."

You already have it; the premise in the form of this meme. I can say that God has always existed, as you with energy based on the first Law of Thermodynamics, but obviously you wouldn’t believe that. Right now, I cannot prove that God always have existed but then… neither can you with the 1st Law.

The matter now is what is more realistic? Your cosmology hinges upon the very existence of atoms, theorized, to have always existed. Then, it is dependent utterly on an explosion and collisions, to create new atomic molecules to ultimately act as building blocks for the universe. However, can bonding new components form an entirely new molecule that is not an energy?

Ex: abc - BANG - abb - BANG - kxVaw?

Finally, suppose new atoms can be made; there has to be enough explosions and collisions over time, to create a building blocks to create life. If creating life is possible through cataclysmic processes, then why aren’t we seeing planet earths everywhere? We do see planets that might.hold life because there is water present, and in moon artifacts or photos that allegedly shows dead bacteriai, but we do not see other earths.

The 1st and 2nd law was only observed when heat rises and falls in a fluidity that strongly suggests a natural law at play. And when it is applied to the question of origin, then the theory is made.

As for the Big Bang, ... yes, there's evidence I concede in that. In reading up, the universe expands at the rate of 72 kps. That strongly suggests an explosion ; but then that can also support the fact that God spoke things into existence including light which contains a spectrum of energy.

My sources are from Live Science

"What Is the First Law of Thermodynamics?"
By Jim Lucas, Live Science Contributor | May 19, 2015 02:17am ET https://www.livescience.com/50881-first-law-thermodynamics.html

"The second law states that if the physical process is irreversible, the combined entropy of the system and the environment must increase. The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process:"
- Second Law of Thermodynamics from NASA https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thermo2.html

"Early attempts at Heat, is it Fluid or What"? by Michael Fowler (probably a student) http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/What%20is%20Heat.htm

Do you not believe in the Big Bang? Is that not widely taught in public schools throughout? It is argued that electrons in certain conditions or circumstances caused something akin to a dramatic explosion of energy, but then how did those electrons exist?

What is singularity and what caused it?

There has to be a cause, for anything to exist in the first place. You are a rational thinker; is it really rational to believe in something that just appeared out of nowhere? In the vacuum of space; of utter nothingness?

Science offers theories for why stuff exists